Heisman; Clinton; targeting Walmart

• Helix High football legend Reggie Bush’s decision to forfeit his 2005 Heisman Trophy could have been a crucial step toward reclaiming the affection of his legions of former fans. But instead of heartfelt contrition over his and his family’s decision to accept gifts from sports marketing agents while he was at the University of Southern California, Bush continues to duck full blame. His statement cited “media speculation regarding allegations” as prompting his decision, not his own behavior. The pressure Bush faced to give up his honor seems dubious, given the likelihood that some past Heisman winners from such scandal-scarred football factories as Florida State, Miami and Alabama also improperly dealt with agents. But that doesn’t excuse his actions. Between USC’s decision to make Bush a nonperson and his continuing inability to fully acknowledge his misdeeds, the taint on the San Diego native is beginning to look permanent. It didn’t have to be this way.

• The kerfuffle continues over Republican Meg Whitman’s controversial but potent TV ad using a 1992 video clip in which Bill Clinton trashes Jerry Brown, Whitman’s Democratic foe in the governor’s race. The ad prompted Brown to trash Clinton for the past criticism, and then apologize himself, which apparently prompted Clinton to proceed with plans to endorse his old rival. But what only political junkies remember is this is the second recent California gubernatorial election in which the former Democratic president has played a prominent role. In 2001, Clinton persuaded then-Gov. Gray Davis to run TV ads ripping potential 2002 GOP rival Richard Riordan for being insufficiently socially conservative. This led to a Republican primary win for underfunded social conservative Bill Simon – a much weaker general election candidate than Riordan – and helped Davis secure re-election. Whatever Clinton’s legacy, the latest flap has cemented his unlikely place in California political lore.

• The sky will fall if a giant nonunion retailer that gives its workers mediocre pay and benefits and displaces mom-and-pop stores wants to start offering not just dried goods but fresh produce and meat, several San Diego City Council members and labor activists declared when the retailer in question was Walmart. But when Target jumps into the grocery game, as detailed in a recent U-T story, no one gripes. Why so? The AlterNet corporate watchdog group says Target’s compensation practices and effects on a community are “eerily similar” to Walmart’s. The answer is partly that Walmart is more successful and thus more of an ultimate threat to grocers with union workers. But it’s also that bashing the Arkansas-based company is a great way to raise funds not just from union-friendly sources but from foes of globalization. Bashing Target? It just doesn’t have the same cachet.